It is difficult for me to not ask that question. I interview for-profit students to ask of them what many of us have asked ourselves when one of those ads pops up at the train station or on late-night TV: why would someone enroll in a for-profit school?

It is not lost on me that so many of the students I interview look like me. They are often black. They are poor and working class. Some are solidly working class. Yet, with notable frequency, they are almost always women. That is due, in part, to the nature of qualitative research and respondent-driven sampling on which I rely: women are more likely to agree to be interviewed and their peer groups are more likely to be other women. Yet, that is also indicative of the quantitative data about the students for-profits overwhelmingly serve. Sixty-nine percent of for-profit students are women. The lower the degree, the more women you find: 75 percent of the students enrolled in for-profit two-year degrees are women. And they are working towards degrees in gendered roles like administrative assistants and nursing aides in gendered fields like healthcare and education.

They are also twice is likely to be poor than women in traditional colleges. And not just poor but quite poor: 16 percent of for-profit students came from families receiving support from the welfare system. For comparison, just 2.6 percent of public and 1.6 percent of private not-for-profit students were engaged with the welfare system. Low-income female students from every racial/ethnic group are nearly three times as likely to attend for-profits as their higher-income female counterparts.

There is certainly variation between for-profit colleges. Higher profile technology schools like DeVry have fewer poor women than do Everest College, which mostly trains people for entry-level jobs in healthcare and office work. To be sure, women make up the majority of all students in traditional higher education, too. Yet, the feeling lingers that there is something about the faces that market for-profit colleges and the faces I encounter as I interview for-profit students that is unsettling. What if, in all our proselytizing ever more education, we are failing to interrogate if all college degrees are created equal and worth any price? The answer would matter for women like Maxine.

I interviewed Maxine at a coffee shop near her work. She is a 43-year-old grandmother of five, mother of three. She graduated from high school with her first-born a few weeks old in a stroller. She has put her children through school by working at a range of manual labor jobs. The companies change, the job title changes, but her position in the social structure has been relatively stable. She packs, sorts, orders, ships, and occasionally cleans in warehouses and back-office rooms for companies like Solectron and TJ Maxx. When one job became unbearable because of a bad boss, inflexible work hours or when the job would just end, Maxine would find the same work at another local employer. That’s how millions of people have historically worked in what sociologists call the secondary labor market. About seven years ago the time between those jobs got longer, the next job harder to find. Increasingly, Maxine works through temp agencies that treat her like cattle. If she misses the phone call for the next job assignment, she misses out on a day’s work. And the work has become harder. There is less order entry and more lifting and hauling. And Maxine is “getting too old for that shit”.

By the time Maxine saw the television commercial for her for-profit college she had been primed by the reality of being a poor single mother to hear its message. She had not been a good student in high school and she had tried enrolling in at least five other job-training programs through the years. She had not completed a single one. But the choices are different for her now. Maxine cannot rely upon food stamps to help feed the grandchildren she often keeps so her children can chase work. The program that provides food subsidies has work requirements and, again, work being hard to come by is why Maxine is where she is. Maxine does not qualify for unemployment insurance because temporary workers rarely meet the requirements. If she chooses to engage the one social safety net left available to millions of Americans, she is choosing to exit the workforce permanently.

We have a few ideas. We know that women in the U.S. do not enjoy paid maternity leave. We know that we do not provide subsided, affordable child care. We know that changes in low wage work disproportionately impacts Black and Hispanic women. We know that the transformation of welfare to a jobs first program amid The Great Recession has made women more vulnerable to changes in the labor market. We know that if your business plan is to maximize social pain for profit, single mothers and poor women have been constructed through social policy as a pretty lucrative target.

So, yes, women are the majority of all college degree seekers. There is nothing particularly shocking about that also being true of for-profit colleges. But it is also true that there is something salient about all the women I interview who are attending for-profit colleges. All of them are mothers. Three-fourths of them are black or Hispanic. The kinds of economic and social policy changes that affect people like Maxine disproportionately affect mothers, particularly black and Hispanic mothers. Their urgency is not like the urgency that motivates the majority of women at traditional colleges. They are dual heads of the same beast, perhaps, but they are qualitatively different. Young women in traditional colleges are responding to the need to be better educated than their male counterparts, even if that means working for less money. The women I interview are earning the most expensive, most contested of all college credentials not to be competitive but to survive.

That their survival also means surviving for their children and their extended families is absolutely gendered. The greatest risk factor for enrolling in a for-profit college isn’t just gender but gender and parenthood. It is being a single mother. The practical college options for mothers is a direct consequence of our nation’s refusal to provide paid maternity leave or subsidized childcare. It could explain why poor men, facing similar economic conditions, are not running to for-profit colleges at the same rate as women.

These are the kinds of realities that are obscured in much of the analysis around for-profit colleges, which focuses largely on their high cost and high student loan debt. These economic orientations are themselves a way of ignoring, if not outright obscuring, the social lives of economic realities. We research and legislate and debate the high cost and high student loan default rates among for-profit students without the proper context. Not all student debt is the same kind of debt because not all students are facing the same set of social conditions. Poor women, especially black and brown women, are living amidst hostile social conditions. Social policy demonizes them as welfare queens and reckless reproducers. The workforce pays them less because they can pay them less. Traditional colleges do not organize to serve them because no one moves up the college rankings by serving poor women who need more resources to serve. And so we end up where I often end up: across the table from women like Maxine trying to make a story most of us would rather not hear from a number most of us would rather ignore. That is always a set of conditions amenable to an intersectional feminist reading.

28 Responses to Gender, Race, And Going To Class: A Call For A Feminist Reading of For-Profit Colleges?

[…] via Gender, Race, And Going To Class: A Call For A Feminist Reading of For-Profit Colleges? | The Femini…. […]

Danielle Docka-Filipek on July 3, 2013 at 10:58 am

Thank you for this brilliant analysis! I have been making these same arguments for years (once the commercials and billboards became widespread) to varying levels of sympathetic reception-EVEN among other sociologists of higher ed). I see the practices of these institutions as entirely predatory and problematically targeted. However, at ASA, I encountered another woman sociologist who gave an interesting (if not entirely valid, IMHO). Yes, she agreed, these institutions are far more expensive than what might be offered at a public institution. However, she felt the extra expense was justified because of the ‘hand-holding” they offer for individuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who might not otherwise have the necessary cultural capital and credentials to navigate the admissions/financial aid processes necessary for initial and continued enrollment. Many might not otherwise have the capacity to juggle the necessary processes, either because of a lack of time, resources, experienced sounding boards, etc. Therefore, she informed.me, institutions such as these (and their price tags) are of enormous utility in keeping ‘higher education’ accessible. I countered: What of the fact that many of the jobs these institutions are training individuals for pay little more than entry-level wages in other positions that do not require a degree? Or, the fact that one could spend the time they would otherwise spend working towards a professional degree (such as medical assisting) instead working their way into a management position or a promotion? While I do understand that many of the jobs worked by folks in this targeted demographic ‘dead end’ at a pretty paltry level (or are oftentimes a ‘dead end’ from the get-go, that doesn’t mean jobs with potential to rise beyond entry-level pay, job titles, and benefits are completely nonexistent. Nor does it mean, in my mind, that one should abandon their pursuit, especially in an economy where having a post-secondary degree may or may not be a sound financial decision. The counter argument there was that such professional degrees, while expensive, offer an additional level of job security, mobility, and portability one might not otherwise be able to access. I’m very excited to be having this conversation, especially as a mentor for young women of color, as these are the types of.conversations we need to be having with our youth-especially as these institutions step up their predatory strategies. What do others think???

Oh boy what I wouldn’t pay to know who said that to you. I hear similar perspectives. It’s a narrow perspective, in my view. It has an implicit assumption about “access” that I challenge vehemently. Access is lauded as a universal goal without critically examining access to WHAT? It’s the “to what” that is the real symbolic capital of mobility. Access is just one socially constructed means of getting to mobility, not an inherently right, proper or even effective means.

More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification. We know that as sociologists so I’m always surprised to hear the kind of push back you describe.

The “extra expense” for “hand holding”. Oh boy. What hand holding, I wonder? The for-profit college sector spends 3 to 1 on recruitment as opposed to instruction. If there is indeed extra hand holding at the point of enrollment — which I absolutely concede there is (I have a forthcoming paper on for-profit enrollment process) — then the hand holding magically disappears during the matriculation process. I’d argue that since the benefit of access is about completing a credential rather than just enrolling in college, spending less money on matriculation than on enrollment is an ambiguous benefit to students. Certainly it complicates the idea that the student should pay such a high premium for that type of hand-holding.

Nia Boyd on July 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm

“More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification”. This observation is quite astute as is your general thesis. Education is not the great equalizer it is supposed to be. I also agree that the for-profit institutions are predatory in their practices and clearly target poor women, particularly those of color. As in public and private institutions, the benefit to the colleges is in the recruitment process where, as Danielle notes, the “hand-holding” begins and ends. A systemic feminist reading of and dialogue around post-secondary education is necessary, but the conversation must include the women who are most at risk. I often find that as intellectuals we are not able to disseminate the information in ways that make a difference.
i am a 2nd year PhD student who could easily have slipped through the cracks.I am funded at a major public institution and am very concerned with how my work in cultural studies, with an emphasis on literacy and literature can be useful. I want to assure that information and assistance regarding education options become available to young at-risk women before poverty and lack of social/cultural capital leave them vulnerable to the multiple dead end realities discussed here. Ideas?

Danielle Docka-Filipek on July 3, 2013 at 10:58 am

Thank you for this brilliant analysis! I have been making these same arguments for years (once the commercials and billboards became widespread) to varying levels of sympathetic reception-EVEN among other sociologists of higher ed). I see the practices of these institutions as entirely predatory and problematically targeted. However, at ASA, I encountered another woman sociologist who gave an interesting (if not entirely valid, IMHO). Yes, she agreed, these institutions are far more expensive than what might be offered at a public institution. However, she felt the extra expense was justified because of the ‘hand-holding” they offer for individuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who might not otherwise have the necessary cultural capital and credentials to navigate the admissions/financial aid processes necessary for initial and continued enrollment. Many might not otherwise have the capacity to juggle the necessary processes, either because of a lack of time, resources, experienced sounding boards, etc. Therefore, she informed.me, institutions such as these (and their price tags) are of enormous utility in keeping ‘higher education’ accessible. I countered: What of the fact that many of the jobs these institutions are training individuals for pay little more than entry-level wages in other positions that do not require a degree? Or, the fact that one could spend the time they would otherwise spend working towards a professional degree (such as medical assisting) instead working their way into a management position or a promotion? While I do understand that many of the jobs worked by folks in this targeted demographic ‘dead end’ at a pretty paltry level (or are oftentimes a ‘dead end’ from the get-go, that doesn’t mean jobs with potential to rise beyond entry-level pay, job titles, and benefits are completely nonexistent. Nor does it mean, in my mind, that one should abandon their pursuit, especially in an economy where having a post-secondary degree may or may not be a sound financial decision. The counter argument there was that such professional degrees, while expensive, offer an additional level of job security, mobility, and portability one might not otherwise be able to access. I’m very excited to be having this conversation, especially as a mentor for young women of color, as these are the types of.conversations we need to be having with our youth-especially as these institutions step up their predatory strategies. What do others think???

Oh boy what I wouldn’t pay to know who said that to you. I hear similar perspectives. It’s a narrow perspective, in my view. It has an implicit assumption about “access” that I challenge vehemently. Access is lauded as a universal goal without critically examining access to WHAT? It’s the “to what” that is the real symbolic capital of mobility. Access is just one socially constructed means of getting to mobility, not an inherently right, proper or even effective means.

More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification. We know that as sociologists so I’m always surprised to hear the kind of push back you describe.

The “extra expense” for “hand holding”. Oh boy. What hand holding, I wonder? The for-profit college sector spends 3 to 1 on recruitment as opposed to instruction. If there is indeed extra hand holding at the point of enrollment — which I absolutely concede there is (I have a forthcoming paper on for-profit enrollment process) — then the hand holding magically disappears during the matriculation process. I’d argue that since the benefit of access is about completing a credential rather than just enrolling in college, spending less money on matriculation than on enrollment is an ambiguous benefit to students. Certainly it complicates the idea that the student should pay such a high premium for that type of hand-holding.

Nia Boyd on July 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm

“More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification”. This observation is quite astute as is your general thesis. Education is not the great equalizer it is supposed to be. I also agree that the for-profit institutions are predatory in their practices and clearly target poor women, particularly those of color. As in public and private institutions, the benefit to the colleges is in the recruitment process where, as Danielle notes, the “hand-holding” begins and ends. A systemic feminist reading of and dialogue around post-secondary education is necessary, but the conversation must include the women who are most at risk. I often find that as intellectuals we are not able to disseminate the information in ways that make a difference.
i am a 2nd year PhD student who could easily have slipped through the cracks.I am funded at a major public institution and am very concerned with how my work in cultural studies, with an emphasis on literacy and literature can be useful. I want to assure that information and assistance regarding education options become available to young at-risk women before poverty and lack of social/cultural capital leave them vulnerable to the multiple dead end realities discussed here. Ideas?

Danielle Docka-Filipek on July 3, 2013 at 10:58 am

Thank you for this brilliant analysis! I have been making these same arguments for years (once the commercials and billboards became widespread) to varying levels of sympathetic reception-EVEN among other sociologists of higher ed). I see the practices of these institutions as entirely predatory and problematically targeted. However, at ASA, I encountered another woman sociologist who gave an interesting (if not entirely valid, IMHO). Yes, she agreed, these institutions are far more expensive than what might be offered at a public institution. However, she felt the extra expense was justified because of the ‘hand-holding” they offer for individuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who might not otherwise have the necessary cultural capital and credentials to navigate the admissions/financial aid processes necessary for initial and continued enrollment. Many might not otherwise have the capacity to juggle the necessary processes, either because of a lack of time, resources, experienced sounding boards, etc. Therefore, she informed.me, institutions such as these (and their price tags) are of enormous utility in keeping ‘higher education’ accessible. I countered: What of the fact that many of the jobs these institutions are training individuals for pay little more than entry-level wages in other positions that do not require a degree? Or, the fact that one could spend the time they would otherwise spend working towards a professional degree (such as medical assisting) instead working their way into a management position or a promotion? While I do understand that many of the jobs worked by folks in this targeted demographic ‘dead end’ at a pretty paltry level (or are oftentimes a ‘dead end’ from the get-go, that doesn’t mean jobs with potential to rise beyond entry-level pay, job titles, and benefits are completely nonexistent. Nor does it mean, in my mind, that one should abandon their pursuit, especially in an economy where having a post-secondary degree may or may not be a sound financial decision. The counter argument there was that such professional degrees, while expensive, offer an additional level of job security, mobility, and portability one might not otherwise be able to access. I’m very excited to be having this conversation, especially as a mentor for young women of color, as these are the types of.conversations we need to be having with our youth-especially as these institutions step up their predatory strategies. What do others think???

Oh boy what I wouldn’t pay to know who said that to you. I hear similar perspectives. It’s a narrow perspective, in my view. It has an implicit assumption about “access” that I challenge vehemently. Access is lauded as a universal goal without critically examining access to WHAT? It’s the “to what” that is the real symbolic capital of mobility. Access is just one socially constructed means of getting to mobility, not an inherently right, proper or even effective means.

More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification. We know that as sociologists so I’m always surprised to hear the kind of push back you describe.

The “extra expense” for “hand holding”. Oh boy. What hand holding, I wonder? The for-profit college sector spends 3 to 1 on recruitment as opposed to instruction. If there is indeed extra hand holding at the point of enrollment — which I absolutely concede there is (I have a forthcoming paper on for-profit enrollment process) — then the hand holding magically disappears during the matriculation process. I’d argue that since the benefit of access is about completing a credential rather than just enrolling in college, spending less money on matriculation than on enrollment is an ambiguous benefit to students. Certainly it complicates the idea that the student should pay such a high premium for that type of hand-holding.

Nia Boyd on July 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm

“More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification”. This observation is quite astute as is your general thesis. Education is not the great equalizer it is supposed to be. I also agree that the for-profit institutions are predatory in their practices and clearly target poor women, particularly those of color. As in public and private institutions, the benefit to the colleges is in the recruitment process where, as Danielle notes, the “hand-holding” begins and ends. A systemic feminist reading of and dialogue around post-secondary education is necessary, but the conversation must include the women who are most at risk. I often find that as intellectuals we are not able to disseminate the information in ways that make a difference.
i am a 2nd year PhD student who could easily have slipped through the cracks.I am funded at a major public institution and am very concerned with how my work in cultural studies, with an emphasis on literacy and literature can be useful. I want to assure that information and assistance regarding education options become available to young at-risk women before poverty and lack of social/cultural capital leave them vulnerable to the multiple dead end realities discussed here. Ideas?

Danielle Docka-Filipek on July 3, 2013 at 10:58 am

Thank you for this brilliant analysis! I have been making these same arguments for years (once the commercials and billboards became widespread) to varying levels of sympathetic reception-EVEN among other sociologists of higher ed). I see the practices of these institutions as entirely predatory and problematically targeted. However, at ASA, I encountered another woman sociologist who gave an interesting (if not entirely valid, IMHO). Yes, she agreed, these institutions are far more expensive than what might be offered at a public institution. However, she felt the extra expense was justified because of the ‘hand-holding” they offer for individuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who might not otherwise have the necessary cultural capital and credentials to navigate the admissions/financial aid processes necessary for initial and continued enrollment. Many might not otherwise have the capacity to juggle the necessary processes, either because of a lack of time, resources, experienced sounding boards, etc. Therefore, she informed.me, institutions such as these (and their price tags) are of enormous utility in keeping ‘higher education’ accessible. I countered: What of the fact that many of the jobs these institutions are training individuals for pay little more than entry-level wages in other positions that do not require a degree? Or, the fact that one could spend the time they would otherwise spend working towards a professional degree (such as medical assisting) instead working their way into a management position or a promotion? While I do understand that many of the jobs worked by folks in this targeted demographic ‘dead end’ at a pretty paltry level (or are oftentimes a ‘dead end’ from the get-go, that doesn’t mean jobs with potential to rise beyond entry-level pay, job titles, and benefits are completely nonexistent. Nor does it mean, in my mind, that one should abandon their pursuit, especially in an economy where having a post-secondary degree may or may not be a sound financial decision. The counter argument there was that such professional degrees, while expensive, offer an additional level of job security, mobility, and portability one might not otherwise be able to access. I’m very excited to be having this conversation, especially as a mentor for young women of color, as these are the types of.conversations we need to be having with our youth-especially as these institutions step up their predatory strategies. What do others think???

Oh boy what I wouldn’t pay to know who said that to you. I hear similar perspectives. It’s a narrow perspective, in my view. It has an implicit assumption about “access” that I challenge vehemently. Access is lauded as a universal goal without critically examining access to WHAT? It’s the “to what” that is the real symbolic capital of mobility. Access is just one socially constructed means of getting to mobility, not an inherently right, proper or even effective means.

More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification. We know that as sociologists so I’m always surprised to hear the kind of push back you describe.

The “extra expense” for “hand holding”. Oh boy. What hand holding, I wonder? The for-profit college sector spends 3 to 1 on recruitment as opposed to instruction. If there is indeed extra hand holding at the point of enrollment — which I absolutely concede there is (I have a forthcoming paper on for-profit enrollment process) — then the hand holding magically disappears during the matriculation process. I’d argue that since the benefit of access is about completing a credential rather than just enrolling in college, spending less money on matriculation than on enrollment is an ambiguous benefit to students. Certainly it complicates the idea that the student should pay such a high premium for that type of hand-holding.

Nia Boyd on July 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm

“More colleges doesn’t magically produce less stratification”. This observation is quite astute as is your general thesis. Education is not the great equalizer it is supposed to be. I also agree that the for-profit institutions are predatory in their practices and clearly target poor women, particularly those of color. As in public and private institutions, the benefit to the colleges is in the recruitment process where, as Danielle notes, the “hand-holding” begins and ends. A systemic feminist reading of and dialogue around post-secondary education is necessary, but the conversation must include the women who are most at risk. I often find that as intellectuals we are not able to disseminate the information in ways that make a difference.
i am a 2nd year PhD student who could easily have slipped through the cracks.I am funded at a major public institution and am very concerned with how my work in cultural studies, with an emphasis on literacy and literature can be useful. I want to assure that information and assistance regarding education options become available to young at-risk women before poverty and lack of social/cultural capital leave them vulnerable to the multiple dead end realities discussed here. Ideas?

Thanks for this! My dissertation is about how community colleges recruit for programs that feed into the oil and gas industry in South Texas. Part of my work will revolve around how these strategies directly/indirectly target gender and class. I would love to read more of your work.

Thanks for this! My dissertation is about how community colleges recruit for programs that feed into the oil and gas industry in South Texas. Part of my work will revolve around how these strategies directly/indirectly target gender and class. I would love to read more of your work.

Thanks for this! My dissertation is about how community colleges recruit for programs that feed into the oil and gas industry in South Texas. Part of my work will revolve around how these strategies directly/indirectly target gender and class. I would love to read more of your work.

Thanks for this! My dissertation is about how community colleges recruit for programs that feed into the oil and gas industry in South Texas. Part of my work will revolve around how these strategies directly/indirectly target gender and class. I would love to read more of your work.

Rachet Rachel on July 8, 2013 at 6:07 pm

There’s one word that captures this entire phenomenon, “PIMPING.” This is academic pimping and as the streets say, “Pimping Ain’t Easy.” Now, extend your analysis to all of the female students and faculty, who don’t come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, whose labor adds value and profit to this system of exploitation, prostitution.

Rachet Rachel on July 8, 2013 at 6:07 pm

There’s one word that captures this entire phenomenon, “PIMPING.” This is academic pimping and as the streets say, “Pimping Ain’t Easy.” Now, extend your analysis to all of the female students and faculty, who don’t come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, whose labor adds value and profit to this system of exploitation, prostitution.

Rachet Rachel on July 8, 2013 at 6:07 pm

There’s one word that captures this entire phenomenon, “PIMPING.” This is academic pimping and as the streets say, “Pimping Ain’t Easy.” Now, extend your analysis to all of the female students and faculty, who don’t come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, whose labor adds value and profit to this system of exploitation, prostitution.

Rachet Rachel on July 8, 2013 at 6:07 pm

There’s one word that captures this entire phenomenon, “PIMPING.” This is academic pimping and as the streets say, “Pimping Ain’t Easy.” Now, extend your analysis to all of the female students and faculty, who don’t come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, whose labor adds value and profit to this system of exploitation, prostitution.

Ms. jackson on July 8, 2013 at 9:56 pm

I have worked for for- profit – institutions for past 8years in a position of recruiting and retention. For – profits institutions market to the poor, women of color, and others who are termed high risk. The hand holding is an unwritten rule. Recruiters do everything for the potential student; ex. buying snacks, providing transportation to and from the interview, filing the financial aid online, ordering income tax transcripts, and uttering FA refund as a way to close the deal. My current institutions has a less than 20% graduation rate. One of the reasons I s the high cost of tuition. Currently a student with zero loan history can not earn a bachelor’s degree from this university. The cost of the degree exceeds the loan limit. The school will give a graduation scholar of up to 12k and the can only go toward their last 4 classes. They are hoping this improves the graduation and retention rates. Sadly, most students have dropped out long before they qualify. Student evaluations are key to professors keeping their jobs. Benchmarks for learning and grading rubics are a joke. It is common practice for professor tone give poorly performing students passing grades in exchange for higher evaluation scores. Not to mention the unethical random practice of giving student multiple opportunities to take test and
complete assignments. I am currently seeking employment elsewhere, in an education organization with a focus on quality education.

Ms. jackson on July 8, 2013 at 9:56 pm

I have worked for for- profit – institutions for past 8years in a position of recruiting and retention. For – profits institutions market to the poor, women of color, and others who are termed high risk. The hand holding is an unwritten rule. Recruiters do everything for the potential student; ex. buying snacks, providing transportation to and from the interview, filing the financial aid online, ordering income tax transcripts, and uttering FA refund as a way to close the deal. My current institutions has a less than 20% graduation rate. One of the reasons I s the high cost of tuition. Currently a student with zero loan history can not earn a bachelor’s degree from this university. The cost of the degree exceeds the loan limit. The school will give a graduation scholar of up to 12k and the can only go toward their last 4 classes. They are hoping this improves the graduation and retention rates. Sadly, most students have dropped out long before they qualify. Student evaluations are key to professors keeping their jobs. Benchmarks for learning and grading rubics are a joke. It is common practice for professor tone give poorly performing students passing grades in exchange for higher evaluation scores. Not to mention the unethical random practice of giving student multiple opportunities to take test and
complete assignments. I am currently seeking employment elsewhere, in an education organization with a focus on quality education.

Ms. jackson on July 8, 2013 at 9:56 pm

I have worked for for- profit – institutions for past 8years in a position of recruiting and retention. For – profits institutions market to the poor, women of color, and others who are termed high risk. The hand holding is an unwritten rule. Recruiters do everything for the potential student; ex. buying snacks, providing transportation to and from the interview, filing the financial aid online, ordering income tax transcripts, and uttering FA refund as a way to close the deal. My current institutions has a less than 20% graduation rate. One of the reasons I s the high cost of tuition. Currently a student with zero loan history can not earn a bachelor’s degree from this university. The cost of the degree exceeds the loan limit. The school will give a graduation scholar of up to 12k and the can only go toward their last 4 classes. They are hoping this improves the graduation and retention rates. Sadly, most students have dropped out long before they qualify. Student evaluations are key to professors keeping their jobs. Benchmarks for learning and grading rubics are a joke. It is common practice for professor tone give poorly performing students passing grades in exchange for higher evaluation scores. Not to mention the unethical random practice of giving student multiple opportunities to take test and
complete assignments. I am currently seeking employment elsewhere, in an education organization with a focus on quality education.

Ms. jackson on July 8, 2013 at 9:56 pm

I have worked for for- profit – institutions for past 8years in a position of recruiting and retention. For – profits institutions market to the poor, women of color, and others who are termed high risk. The hand holding is an unwritten rule. Recruiters do everything for the potential student; ex. buying snacks, providing transportation to and from the interview, filing the financial aid online, ordering income tax transcripts, and uttering FA refund as a way to close the deal. My current institutions has a less than 20% graduation rate. One of the reasons I s the high cost of tuition. Currently a student with zero loan history can not earn a bachelor’s degree from this university. The cost of the degree exceeds the loan limit. The school will give a graduation scholar of up to 12k and the can only go toward their last 4 classes. They are hoping this improves the graduation and retention rates. Sadly, most students have dropped out long before they qualify. Student evaluations are key to professors keeping their jobs. Benchmarks for learning and grading rubics are a joke. It is common practice for professor tone give poorly performing students passing grades in exchange for higher evaluation scores. Not to mention the unethical random practice of giving student multiple opportunities to take test and
complete assignments. I am currently seeking employment elsewhere, in an education organization with a focus on quality education.